Ya gotta laugh. They are still sayin’ it. The homosexual activists are still claiming that there is no such thing as a slippery slope, and legalising homosexual marriage will not open the door to other sexual lifestyles being recognised and legally sanctioned.

Yeah right. We are well beyond arguing whether there will be a slippery slope. There already is one – big time. I have documented countless examples of this already. It seems that almost every day another example is revealed. The cases are mounting up, as are the various advocacy groups for these brave new sexualities.

All sorts of even “respectable” folks and organisations and opinion makers and publications are calling for the full endorsement of the various new sexual kids on the block, be they the polyamory crowd, the incest proponents, or even the bestiality campaigners. Oh, and don’t forget the object marriage rights people as well. Really!

While my next book will offer plenty of well-documented chapters examining all these slope dwellers and their very slippery slides, the new examples keep on coming. It will be hard to draw the line at where I stop so I can get the book off to the printers.

But just consider this recent case of moral madness and marriage moonbattery. Most of you would have heard how in the US a federal judge has struck down at least parts of polygamy laws in Utah. The facts of the case are recounted in this news report:

“A federal judge has found key parts of Utah’s anti-polygamy law to be unconstitutional, ruling in favor of a polygamous family known for their reality television show. While all 50 states across the nation have laws against bigamy, prohibiting people from having multiple marriage licenses, the law went further in Utah, finding a person guilty of bigamy when a married person ‘purports to marry another or cohabits with another person.’

“But Judge Clark Waddoups of the U.S. District Court in Utah ruled late Friday that the ‘cohabitation’ provision of the law was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of religion and the right to due process. His 91-page ruling now criminalizes plural marriages only in the literal sense, through acquisition of multiple marriage licenses.”

This decision of course has unleashed a storm of controversy – and rightly so. In many ways this is another case of social engineering through judicial activism. Utah Governor Gary Herbert for example has expressed his concern over the federal judge’s ruling:

“Herbert says while he had not had a chance to review U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups’ ruling, he’s ‘always a little concerned’ when public policy changes are made by the courts. The Republican governor told The Salt Lake Tribune he would ‘much rather see decisions on social issues’ made by the Legislature, but he still needs ‘to understand the arguments and logic’ that went into the ruling.”

And Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention also expressed his deep concerns: “This is what happens when marriage becomes about the emotional and sexual wants of adults, divorced from the needs of children for a mother and a father committed to each other for life. Polygamy was outlawed in this country because it was demonstrated, again and again, to hurt women and children. Sadly, when marriage is elastic enough to mean anything, in due time it comes to mean nothing.”

Al Mohler has also weighed into this issue. After looking at a number of the legal aspects involved in the ruling, he goes on to highlight the bigger picture: “Of course, the moral revolution that has transformed marriage in our times did not start with the demand for legal same-sex marriage. It did not begin with homosexuality at all, but with the sexual libertinism that demanded (and achieved) a separation of marriage and sex, liberating sex from the confines of marriage.

“So sex was separated from marriage, and then sex was separated from the expectation of procreation and child-rearing. Marriage was separated from sex, sex was separated from reproduction, and the revolution was launched. Adding to the speed of this revolution, then, was the advent of no-fault divorce and the transformation of marriage into a tentative and often temporary contract.

“Once that damage had been done, the demand to legalize same-sex marriage could not be far behind. And now polygamy is enjoying its moment of legal liberation. Once marriage was redefined in function, it was easy to redefine it in terms of permanence. Once that was done, it was easy enough to redefine it in terms of gender. Now, with the logic of moral revolution transforming marriage in all respects, polygamy follows same-sex marriage. If marriage can be redefined in terms of gender, it can easily be redefined in terms of number.

“As legal scholar Jonathan S. Tobin has explained, ‘Waddoups’s ruling merely illustrates what follows from a legal trend in which longstanding definitions are thrown out. The inexorable logic of the end of traditional marriage laws leads us to legalized polygamy.’

“But the central issue in Judge Waddoups’s decision is consent. He simply extended the argument that virtually anything to which consenting adults agree is covered by constitutional protection—anything. As Jonathan Turley stated clearly, ‘there is no spectrum of private consensual relations.’

“And so both marriage and morality take another major blow. This one came even faster than was feared. The reverberations from this decision will be massive and far reaching. But that insight is merely, to quote Judge Waddoups, ‘to state the obvious’.”

So we have here yet another blow to the institutions of marriage and family. And all the groups pushing their radical kinky agendas have much to thank the earlier marriage destroyers: the militant homosexual lobby. All the spadework for them has been done by those pushing for homosexual marriage.

All the arguments used so nicely by them can now be used by the other sexual libertines. Whether it is “rights” talk, or shouts for “equality”, or demands for “diversity” and “acceptance,” the ground has well and truly been prepared. Indeed, the slope is steep, well-greased, and is now being regularly used by all sorts of groups.

And yet the activists still shout, “What slippery slope?”


[1039 words]

14 Replies to “Polyperversity”

  1. Yes, if the only criteria for these mongrel conglomerates, called marriage is that they are consensual, harmless and fulfilling a desire, then any sexual connection is legitimate.

    Jerry Springer shows us how those waiting outside in the cold who engage in incest will be the next to invade our living rooms, bedrooms and nurseries: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E35-NcHYfYk

    But in addition if the Mormons can hide behind religious rights and the definition of religion has now extended to Scientologist, what is to stop pansexual perversion hiding behind all manner of phallic worshipping religions.
    Read this excellent article by Lynda Rose of Voice for Justice UK

    David Skinner, UK

  2. And what always gets my goat is the assertion that the Slippery Slope “equates” homosexuality with anything down the slope. The number of times I have heard, “It is obscene that you compare homosexuality with bestiality” is just absolutely mind-boggling. How anyone can fall for the “equating” argument is just absolutely beyond me.

    Matt Patchon

  3. Slippery slope is considered a logical fallacy. None of these outcomes should be consider slippery slope anymore, they are an absolute certainty.

    Without a doubt the destruction and redefinition of marriage will have broader far reaching consequences, which on the whole will be remarkably detrimental to a society that embraces it.

    Graham Jose

  4. How devoid of grace, when we have the gift of life and its creation, to spurn that gift and to prefer barren intimacy with someone of the same sex; or for a man to despise a woman as merely a breeder of babies, unworthy of homosexual love; or for a woman to devalue herself by sharing her man with other women – all having orgasms in close proximity under the same roof – like a brothel but they don’t get paid! And then the inconvenience of babies, if they are allowed to live -.what’s to become of them?

    It all pours a bucketful of bilge on the sacred marriage of Man and Woman. It caters only to the desires of adults regardless of children. Shamefully, children are increasingly sexually abused by so-called adults. Marriage is for grown-ups – it needs two grown-ups to succeed. When one falters the other holds the fort and vice versa. When one transgresses – that one says sorry and repairs the relationship and both are rewarded to the end of their days with love, companionship, family. Instead of rewarding failure and submitting to debased behaviour, we should be incentivised to aim higher as members of the human race. Life is an opportunity to grow in good character and resist temptation. If we let evil strengthen its stranglehold – we will get hell on earth.

    Rachel Smith

  5. I think your source is wrong in quoting the 14th Amendment. The “due process” amendment is no. 5. I suggest readers check it out, because you will find that it says absolutely nothing which could be relevant to this issue – although it is usually quoted in all sexual freedom cases. The actual words are:” … nor shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law”. Blind Freddie can see what this means. It means that no-one can be put to death (deprived of life), imprisoned (deprived of liberty), or fined (deprived of property) except by a fair trial (due process of law). However, the Supreme Court has been taking the word “liberty” to mean any restriction which the judge doesn’t like.
    Malcolm Smith

  6. This quote is brilliant!
    “So sex was separated from marriage, and then sex was separated from the expectation of procreation and child-rearing. Marriage was separated from sex, sex was separated from reproduction, and the revolution was launched.”
    This is exactly what God convicted me of about 12 months or so ago. I have NEVER heard this preached in a church yet – this concept that contraception is a problem. That it is a holy thing to not use contraception and to let God rule in this area of our lives, for contraception separates sex from procreation and marriage. I have written my story of repentance here for any who are interested. http://heleadsmesharon.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/another-baby.html

    Dr James Dobson also covers this topic very well in his recent book “Fatherless” which I am currently reading. It is excellent in discussing these issues and their long term implications.

    Sharon Stay

  7. Americans at the time of the election were offered either Marxism and Islam in the form of Obama or polygamy and Mormonism in the form of Mitt Romney. Biblical truths such as a house divided against itself will fall and one cannot serve two masters without one loving one and hating the other, only go to demonstrate that one cannot live with a divided heart, without disintegration occurring. America, an adulterous nation is set to tear itself apart.
    It also goes to show that sexual sins have graver consequences for any nation than others, like gossiping, stealing and pride etc. When did one hear of an enemy subverting a nation by encouraging its citizens to lie and cheat? But the power of sexual temptation, without the power of God’s Truth and the Holy Spirit, is almost impossible to resist. The cultural Marxists have done their work. Like so many nations that set themselves up against God America is already but a dream, just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away.

    David Skinner, UK

  8. For some thinkers influenced by the madman in Nietzsche’s parable in his bookThe Gay Science, the concept of a moral “slippery slope” can never arise: If clever men have proven God is dead, they have thereby “wiped away the horizons” and abolished the “up” and the “down” of the ethical domain of human experience.

    John Wigg

  9. Sharon, you may be interested to read the papal encyclical, Humanae Vitae (1968): http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html , which prophesised the moral degradation that would follow from permitting sex outside marriage.

    And let’s face it, that’s not just a Catholic or even Christian point of view. Regulating sexuality has been the hallmark of all civilizations. And even of tribes.

    We daily witness the ‘fruits’ of sexual liberation: familial dysfunction; epidemics of alcohol and other addictions; massive taxation to manage and support alternative ‘family’ structures with tax-payer funded counsellors, etc.

    Pope Paul VI was excoriated by the world and ‘progressive’ Catholics but he’s been proven right. Uncoupling sex from procreation has been disastrous for human happiness.

    Antonia Feitz

  10. I’ve had discussions with other Christians who support SSM about this. When I raised the slippery slope argument, I was told, from memory, that this was a “moot point” and that this could never happen. I became frustrated and impatient with this and gave up the discussion.

    Ross McPhee

  11. When homosexuality was legalised in 1967, the Earl of Arran gave a warning, lest out proud homosexuals forget that no matter how many concessions are given them, they will be forever misfits, always searching to satisfy unmet emotional and spiritual needs. Indeed we often hear, when the gay lobby, Stonewall and their ‘useful idiot friends’ gain another piece of the pie, the cry of, “We have achieved much, but there is so much more to do.” Sadly they are condemned to following this road for all eternity, searching for that which can be found in Christ alone.

    The Earl of Arran said:
    “My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. This is a little occasion, and perhaps I may say a few things. When we first debated these affairs—and how long ago it seems!—I said that your Lordships had it in your power to remove fear from the hearts of men. This you have done. It was this House which gave the lead. Because of the Bill now to be enacted, perhaps a million human beings will be able to live in greater peace. I find this an awesome and marvellous thing. The late Oscar Wilde, on his release from Reading Gaol, wrote to a friend: ‘Yes, we shall win in the end; but the road will be long and red with monstrous martyrdoms.”.’ My Lords, Mr. Wilde was right: the road has been long and the martyrdoms many, monstrous and bloody. Today, please God! sees the end of that road.
    I ask one thing and I ask it earnestly. I ask those who have, as it were, been in bondage and for whom the prison doors are now open to show their thanks by comporting themselves quietly and with dignity. This is no occasion for jubilation; certainly not for celebration. Any form of ostentatious behaviour; now or in the future, any form of public flaunting, would be utterly distasteful and would, I believe, make the sponsors of the Bill regret that they have done what they have done. Homosexuals must continue to remember that while there may be nothing bad in being a homosexual, there is certainly nothing good. Lest the opponents of the Bill think that a new freedom, a new privileged class, has been created, let me remind them that no amount of legislation will prevent homosexuals from being the subject of dislike and derision, or at best of pity. We shall always, I fear, resent the odd man out. That is their burden for all time, and they must shoulder it like men—for men they are.”

    As Lord Monson said, during a debate, over 40 years later, on the 3rd March, 2008, in the House of Lords, recounting a that same debate, in 1967, when the Wolfenden Report resulted in a relaxation of the homosexual laws, there was a voice of disquiet then. He quoted one other peer who said,

    “Yes, the Wolfenden proposals are all very well, but they are the thin end of the wedge. The pendulum is bound to swing too far in the other direction. Mark my words, before many years are out, they”—the more militant homosexuals and not, of course, the ordinary discreet sort—“will demand not merely toleration for their sexual activities—no problem about that—but positive respect, even admiration, for them”. ‘To which I ( Lord Monson) replied, “Oh, come on. Nonsense. You’re being alarmist”. ‘With hindsight, I have to say that I was wrong and they were right.’

    David Skinner, UK

  12. “liberated sex from the confines of marriage”?
    The separation of sex from marriage has not only cheapened sex, but more importantly cheapened and degraded those involved in it. Sex is a good gift of God and therefore needs the protection of marriage according to its stipulation, not according to ours, which change according to level of understanding and worse, level of comfort, desire etc.
    I am still waiting for the time when those in the church will repent of being careless in not guarding their people concerning the blood covenant of marriage and didn’t warn them enough when they engage in casual or even serious sex without the public commitment of marriage and start seriously teaching their people what marriage is all about and why it matters.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *